Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:47 pm
In Vista, "Games," then like, "View your computer's performance ratings" type of thing.
Welcome to Thunderdome
RIP Gordon
https://www.dtman.com/forum3/
Supreme Commander - post-release discussion.
Page 3 of 11
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:53 pm
Oh...vista...
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:01 pm
Obviously don't have vista... but current specs are
AMD 3700+
X800XT
2G Ram
I'll load the demo up for the hell of it and see what happens.
AMD 3700+
X800XT
2G Ram
I'll load the demo up for the hell of it and see what happens.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:44 am
Troy, I think that's better than me right now.
AMD 3500+
7800GT
2GB Ram
I don't know the specs of your video for comparison. But, your CPU is obviously better.
The game always ran good for me. I played all skirmish mode though. Didn't do any missions/storyline stuff. Also, I beat the enemy pretty quickly, or he beat me. So, I never had a 10000 unit battle running or anything. So, don't know when the system would have actually stopped running good.
Also, last time I looked, SC didn't use the extra cores in the multi core CPUs. So, unless they patched that in, people didn't see a big increase in performance upgrading to multi core CPUs.
In closing, I don't think you'll have to upgrade your stuff to play.
I'm waiting till I want to play the Crysis stuff before I buy new hardware. Everything I'm playing now, or is in line to be played, will run well on my current system.
AMD 3500+
7800GT
2GB Ram
I don't know the specs of your video for comparison. But, your CPU is obviously better.
The game always ran good for me. I played all skirmish mode though. Didn't do any missions/storyline stuff. Also, I beat the enemy pretty quickly, or he beat me. So, I never had a 10000 unit battle running or anything. So, don't know when the system would have actually stopped running good.
Also, last time I looked, SC didn't use the extra cores in the multi core CPUs. So, unless they patched that in, people didn't see a big increase in performance upgrading to multi core CPUs.
In closing, I don't think you'll have to upgrade your stuff to play.
I'm waiting till I want to play the Crysis stuff before I buy new hardware. Everything I'm playing now, or is in line to be played, will run well on my current system.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:07 am
Actually, I'm pretty sure SC is a game that uses multiple cores.
I swear I read that somewhere.
I swear I read that somewhere.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:41 am
If you ran dual monitors, it ran 2 cores. 2 instances of the executable.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:13 am
Tried the demo last night.
It was fun.
Game was fine until there were 150 or so units on the screen. Then there was some lag on the zoom in.
I'm considering ordering it off of Newegg now. It was fun, but I've been devoting an hour a night to replaying Oblivion as a thief, so it'll probably have to wait until I'm bored with that.
It was fun.
Game was fine until there were 150 or so units on the screen. Then there was some lag on the zoom in.
I'm considering ordering it off of Newegg now. It was fun, but I've been devoting an hour a night to replaying Oblivion as a thief, so it'll probably have to wait until I'm bored with that.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:18 am
I ran a large map last night with 7 opponents. Still smooth as silk on 2 monitors.
In case anyone wondered.
In case anyone wondered.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:50 am
I ran my penis all over your two monitors
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:20 am
Maybe I'll get used to it...
But the units all seemed soo... small?
I was hoping for to use some of those big ass units I watched in the previews.
Any tips as far as gameplay is concerned?
But the units all seemed soo... small?
I was hoping for to use some of those big ass units I watched in the previews.
Any tips as far as gameplay is concerned?
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:23 am
I built a unit last night that was so big that the level 3 factories near it only came up to about waist high.
Or something.
Have you figured out how to build the level 4 experimental units, yet? That stumped me for a while the first time through.
Or something.
Have you figured out how to build the level 4 experimental units, yet? That stumped me for a while the first time through.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:28 am
I only got to use the red guys, and the demo limited me to only 2 tech 3 units as my best units. (for land, anyway)
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:35 am
The walking mountains are tech 4.
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:49 am
Don't forget to zoom in. That makes them bigger. 
Also, did some quick searches about the multi core capabilities of SupCom. It does have them. It does indeed run better on Multicore cpus. You have to turn the settings down on a single core cpu when running with 7 AIs with 1000's of units. At those levels, a single core is unplayable. Quad handles it as does Dual to a lesser extent. As far as OS versions, Vista loses. You have to turn down some of the settings to run 40kx40k maps with 6 AI and 1000's of units. XP, you don't. So, as far as hardware and OS, quad core on XP is best. SLI in Vista had little impact. SLI in XP had a measurable impact.
The above was measured using fps. Many people were arguing that in an RTS, fps means less. They were pointing out that the game will automatically throttle back game time to keep fps up. In other words, when the shit hits the fan and 1000's of units collide, fps will stay high, but the battle occurs in super slo-mo. The action slows way down. But, you can still zoom in and out and move around the battlefield smoothly with your higher frame rate. So, with large scale battles, a 1 hour game time game, will take 2-3 hours of real time. No one mentioned a comparison between CPUs/OSs/etc taking game/real time into consideration. So, many still question to true value of cores and os versions. Everyone agrees that bigger is still better, but to what degree, as far as game time, is still in question.
Also, all tests were done against AI. So, 7 humans with 1000's of units is still a mystery. Dual monitors was never tested as well. But overall opinion is that it impacts things greatly at the video card level.
So, kill your enemies quickly, and single core cpus will hold their own. Let things get long and protracted, single cores will show their weakness.
It was interesting to see the CPU utilization too for quad/dual/single cores.
Core 1 at 80%, core 2 at 20%, core 3 at 40%, core 4 at 15%.
Core 1 at 90%, core 2 at 40%.
Core 1 at 100%.
Also, did some quick searches about the multi core capabilities of SupCom. It does have them. It does indeed run better on Multicore cpus. You have to turn the settings down on a single core cpu when running with 7 AIs with 1000's of units. At those levels, a single core is unplayable. Quad handles it as does Dual to a lesser extent. As far as OS versions, Vista loses. You have to turn down some of the settings to run 40kx40k maps with 6 AI and 1000's of units. XP, you don't. So, as far as hardware and OS, quad core on XP is best. SLI in Vista had little impact. SLI in XP had a measurable impact.
The above was measured using fps. Many people were arguing that in an RTS, fps means less. They were pointing out that the game will automatically throttle back game time to keep fps up. In other words, when the shit hits the fan and 1000's of units collide, fps will stay high, but the battle occurs in super slo-mo. The action slows way down. But, you can still zoom in and out and move around the battlefield smoothly with your higher frame rate. So, with large scale battles, a 1 hour game time game, will take 2-3 hours of real time. No one mentioned a comparison between CPUs/OSs/etc taking game/real time into consideration. So, many still question to true value of cores and os versions. Everyone agrees that bigger is still better, but to what degree, as far as game time, is still in question.
Also, all tests were done against AI. So, 7 humans with 1000's of units is still a mystery. Dual monitors was never tested as well. But overall opinion is that it impacts things greatly at the video card level.
So, kill your enemies quickly, and single core cpus will hold their own. Let things get long and protracted, single cores will show their weakness.
It was interesting to see the CPU utilization too for quad/dual/single cores.
Core 1 at 80%, core 2 at 20%, core 3 at 40%, core 4 at 15%.
Core 1 at 90%, core 2 at 40%.
Core 1 at 100%.
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:03 pm
My shizzle arrived from amazon, today.
<$19 last I looked.
110 new units. (Probably 35ish for each faction)
<$19 last I looked.
110 new units. (Probably 35ish for each faction)
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:41 pm
GORDON wrote:My shizzle arrived from amazon, today.
<$19 last I looked.
110 new units. (Probably 35ish for each faction)
Yeah, I was looking at the original + expansion from newegg for like 30 bucks. (free shipping)
Pretty good deal.
I'll probably do it next week.
Edited By Troy on 1226090487
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:45 pm
Is that why his face is always so close to the screen?TheCatt wrote:I ran my penis all over your two monitors
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:37 pm
Finally had enough units on screen tonight to slow my machine down. First mission of the expansion campaign. 4 giant experimental units, 1 brand new unit that makes the giant units look small, and a couple hundred regular units in a big battle. Slowed down to about 2 frames per second.... but still not as bad as it used to be on my old system.
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:31 pm
Ordered.
Should arrive in a few days. Newegg for the win.
Should arrive in a few days. Newegg for the win.
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:52 am
Finally... the UEF gets a tech 3 point defense, with the expansion.
You other peeps should play one of the other factions when you skirmish so we have variety in the multi games we play (yeah, right).
You other peeps should play one of the other factions when you skirmish so we have variety in the multi games we play (yeah, right).